Talk:Kiwi Farms: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →

Dbeef (talk | contribs)

5 user groups
13,565 edits
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
A Simple Fool (talk | contribs)
129 edits
No edit summary
Tags: Reverted Reply
Line 86: Line 86:
::::Your continued misgendering of her is somewhat of a concern. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 10:57, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
::::Your continued misgendering of her is somewhat of a concern. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 10:57, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
:::::Honestly, "Wikipedia does not need an article on X notable subject", and "it's easier to avoid it" screams laziness to me. It strikes me as odd that a place for information would basically pick and choose articles based essentially on how comfortable they happen to feel about a specific subject. It's just a bad look to leave gaps in information "just because", despite articles about similar (less notable, even) people existing seemingly without much issue. It's such an arbitrary rule, and it seems likely that most of the people enforcing said rule either know too little, or nothing at all about this subject [[User:A Simple Fool|A Simple Fool]] ([[User talk:A Simple Fool|talk]]) 22:07, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
:::::Honestly, "Wikipedia does not need an article on X notable subject", and "it's easier to avoid it" screams laziness to me. It strikes me as odd that a place for information would basically pick and choose articles based essentially on how comfortable they happen to feel about a specific subject. It's just a bad look to leave gaps in information "just because", despite articles about similar (less notable, even) people existing seemingly without much issue. It's such an arbitrary rule, and it seems likely that most of the people enforcing said rule either know too little, or nothing at all about this subject [[User:A Simple Fool|A Simple Fool]] ([[User talk:A Simple Fool|talk]]) 22:07, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
::::::Your quotes came out of nowhere. <span style="font-family:Iosevka,monospace">0x[[User talk:0xDeadbeef|<span style="text-transform:uppercase;color:black">'''Deadbeef'''</span>]]</span> 22:18, 6 June 2022 (UTC)


== Does the My Immortal fanfic really deserve as much attention as the other controversies? ==
== Does the My Immortal fanfic really deserve as much attention as the other controversies? ==

Revision as of 22:18, 6 June 2022

{{Controversial}} should not be used on pages subject to the contentious topic procedure. Please remove this template. Template:Not a forum Template:Annual readership

"near did not commit suicide"

there is no death certificate, so why is this states as if it is a fact? 213.55.225.51 (talk) 08:29, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

this thread (permalink) explains it. Elli (talk | contribs) 09:49, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This sub-heading is false - Near is confirmed to have committed suicide and Kiwifarms was implicated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.95.86.101 (talk) 19:23, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry. Nobody is convinced by the denials, which I assume to be completely insincere anyway. The article is written on the basis that the suicides are real and it reports the matter as accurately as is possible given that not all of the details are known. That won't change unless new facts come to light. I know it is galling to see them but it is best not to get wound up by the unsupported denials. They don't matter. Anyway, I've put the sub-heading in quotes so that nobody mistakes it for anything being said in Wikipedia's voice. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:37, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain the name "CWIKi"?

Is this code or what? The name should be explained. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.37.136.185 (talk) 07:34, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It already is explained - they were trolling an artist, and those are their initials. No further explanation is necessary. Primefac (talk) 08:41, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't explain how their initials are five letters and the last one is lower case. 185.31.98.35 (talk) 22:53, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The actual name as mentioned in the article is "CWCki": three are initials and the last two letters are part of a pun on the word wiki, Hawaiian for "quick", and used in the modern day to refer to a website that is primarily written by its readers (Wikipedia is unrelated to this hate site, but the "wiki" in it has the same word meaning). — Bilorv (talk) 13:00, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is there wikipedia policy in place on why the person in the initialism is never mentioned at all? Given their extensive media coverage and the original name of the website, a small mention in this article seems warranted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.24.45.37 (talk) 20:55, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If I may very briefly summarise the consensus of the previous discussions here: We do not wish to participate in a harassment campaign against a vulnerable individual for both legal and moral reasons. The person in question is not famous and does not need to be named in order for us to document Kiwi Farms behaviour. I just did a quick Google news check and not only is she no more famous than the last time I checked, there has been next to no ongoing coverage of her which strongly suggests that the claims about her did not stand up to scrutiny. We are here to document what Kiwi Farms is. We are not here to do their dirty work for them. For further details please see the archived discussions. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:00, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll also add that she's also very and obviously mentally ill so unless there is a lot of coverage establishing notability, it would pose a huge BLP issue to name her in the article. (I'm aware of the letters she's sent out while she was in prison.) Besides, the site isn't really known for that person anymore. Most of the time when the site is covered in the news that person is a footnote and sometimes not even named, assuming that they're mentioned at all. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:31, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I feel like the artist is potentially notable, but any mention would immediately violate BLP, and there's simply no way around that. Just because a person is potentially notable enough to warrant a mention doesn't mean that they should be. In fact, we should be extremely cautious about including information about living persons, particularly if they are mentally ill or a victim of harassment. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 09:17, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • The artist in question is now in a secure health facility and his trolls are being starved of attention. Do NOT give into their demands to expand upon the whole “saga” of “CWC” unless it strictly complies with WP standards. 2A00:23C4:3E08:4000:952A:47D0:5A94:FDE9 (talk) 11:36, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do we know any Russian speaking admins?

Off-topic for the article on Kiwi Farms. As mentioned in the discussion, if there is a concern about Russian Wikipedia or WikiData, then it should be discussed either in those locations or (if a broader concern is raised) at a centralised platform such as Meta. Primefac (talk) 07:45, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I'm sure that all the Russian speaking admins are having a very tough time at the moment with war related issues but I was kindly reminded that we still have some mentions the primary KF victim on Russian Wikipedia and in Wikidata. I wonder whether there is any way to enlist the help of a Russian speaking editor, ideally an admin, who can help remove (and preferable salt) this?

Here is what we have:

  • https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q98406706
    Includes deadname and link to videos harassing her as well as other information that likely constitutes doxxing. I have nominated that for deletion here: here. I have no experience with Wikidata deletions so I don't know how well that is likely to go.
  • ru:Чендлер, Кристин Уэстон
    This is already nominated for deletion. It looks like previous attempts at deletion have stalled or failed so I have my doubts whether anything will actually happen unless it is given a push.
  • ru:n:Категория:Кристин Уэстон Чендлер
    This is perhaps the most disgusting one. Based on Google Translation, it seems to misgender her throughout and to report the allegations against her as if they were established as facts. It is framed as a "category" but it contains only one item, which is coverage of an incident completely unrelated to this individual and seems intended to smear by false association.

If anybody can help here then please do. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:53, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how the Russian article on the primary KF victim is deadnaming the individual, at least any differently than English Wikipedia (for example, the English Wikipedia lists the former names of The Wachowskis, much in a similar way that the Russian article does to the individual in question.) Russian Wikipedia might have a transphobia problem (such as listing the Wachowskis on The Matrix article as "the Wachowski Brothers", although this may not have mal-intent as the Wachowski's were pre-transition during the release of the original Matrix and the actual Wachowskis article's title is "The Wachowski Sisters")
Regardless, if you think Russian Wikipedia still has a transphobia problem, I'd recommend going elsewhere to try and fix that issue, as I don't think that's in the scope of the Kiwi Farms article.
Edit: Looking at the Russian Matrix's talkpage, the change from "sister" to "brother" on the article was recent, and fueled by transphobia (and the hypothetical reasoning I gave above.) However, there is an ongoing discussion about reverting back to referring them as sisters, and I think it's an issue best left to the Russian Wikipedia itself.
JungleEntity (talk) 07:10, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just some comments:
1. It's Wikidata policy that pretty much anything with a Wikipedia or Wikimedia project article gets an entry in Wikidata, so it can't be deleted unless the ruwiki and ruwikinews articles are deleted (which is unlikely). If the Wikidata item was deleted for some reason while the ruwiki/ruwikinews pages were still up, I'm sure some bot out there would notice and reinstate it.
2. The article on ruwiki has been up for deletion since August, and it seems like they are notable per ruwiki notability rules (particularly ru:ВП:ВИДЕОБЛОГЕРЫ). Each language wiki and project has its own notability and reliable sources rules (wow! so shocking), and trying to skirt them like this doesn't feel like a good idea to me. Also, Wikidata's notability guideline is loose in general; plenty of things that don't have Wikipedia articles have items in there and are perfectly valid and fine per Wikidata rules (ex. various scientific articles, literary works, some people). wizzito | say hello! 17:54, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Allowing each language wiki to set their own notability rules and general loose Wikidata rules are good in the long run. We should not mess with other wikis just because some of their content doesn't meet our notability standards (but may be actually notable in their respective language/country). It's just a unwanted side-effect (at least, for English Wikipedia) that people like the victim in question get articles. - JungleEntity (talk) 05:33, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"We should not mess with other wikis just because some of their content doesn't meet our notability standards" - exactly! That is what I feel that DanielRigal is doing; trying to mess with ruwiki and Wikidata simply because an article on this person probably meets their notability standards. It's very WP:IDONTLIKEIT behavior to me. wizzito | say hello! 19:22, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would remind you that the Russian language Wikipedia is still operated by Wikimedia, which is American, and American laws on harassment and stalking still apply. As for "I don't like it", I freely admit that I don't like people using Wikipedia to harass vulnerable people with the intention to induce them to commit suicide. It's called being a decent human being. More people should try it. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:29, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think any of what you linked from Russian Wikipedia breaks American harassment laws. The Russian Wikipedia article isn't derogatory or targeted, I honestly don't see the Russian Wikinews category saying anything unproven, as legal documents for both of the arrests mentioned are easily found online (although it wouldn't hurt to put a source). Wikidata is simply hosting the videos. It might not be the best to host those videos, but it isn't taking any stance in the situation. JungleEntity (talk) 22:07, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As JungleEntity pretty much said, which part of the ruwiki article is "harass[ing] a vulnerable person" and "induc[ing] them to commit suicide"? I'm sorry that you don't like the fact that an article on this person is acceptable on other wikis, but as Isabelle said, this is probably not the place to discuss it. wizzito | say hello! 04:38, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reminder that this space should be reserved for discussion of how to improve the English Wikipedia article. If you want to continue this discussion, I'd recommend either moving to an editor's talk page or maybe to meta:Forum, where discussion about the various Wikimedia projects is hosted. Isabelle 🔔 22:13, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why isn't Chris mentioned by name?

It's very clear that the writer went out of his way to not name him. Not mentioning him by name is like calling Zuckerberg "a collage student" on the Wikipedia page for Facebook and intentionally refusing to say his name, Chris is the main reason the site was made, mention him by name or don't make an article on the site. Mudkipboy7 (talk) 02:55, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Kiwifarms is noteable and that makes Chris notable and should be named. Mentally ill or not, wanting to have notoriety or not, those are not relevant things to being documented on Wikipedia except maybe in extraordinary and extreme cases. We always see people getting attention in the media we don't think deserve any, like it or not they're relevant to the subject. 185.31.98.184 (talk) 04:42, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The article has been written and re-written so many times, always with some hackneyed attempt to obfuscate the origin of the name, and by extension avoid the whole "CWC"-thing. It really does the article no good, as this isn't just "a mentally ill person", it's a prominent figure in internet culture, who, for several reasons (not just the 2021 arrest) has received a fair amount of mainstream media coverage. In general, I believe this CWC person is notable enough for an article of their own, based on the extremely unique circumstances of their life and their massive cult following. It wouldn't be too out-there, given articles of a similar nature (see Jessi Slaughter cyberbullying case as example) do exist on Wikipedia.

I understand that such an article would have to have a close eye on it, to prevent it from going off the rails, and that the topic itself has been sort of banned, since both CWC and their detractors used Wikipedia as a "battle ground" of sorts way back when, but I consider it a disservice to not at least have a brief mention of the namesake of this article, particularly since several of the listed sources provide this very information. A Simple Fool (talk) 17:34, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This topic has been discussed to death. There would need to be consensus in a structured, formal, well-attended discussion (such as a Request for Comment) to change the community's current position. I notice that no comments in this section provide any evidence that there has been substantial coverage in reliable sources. — Bilorv (talk) 08:44, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if these are reliable sources or not, but there are several articles to be found regarding CWC and recent events through a Google search. (1, 2.)
I don't think it's enough to create an entire new article, but I think it's worth a mention in the KiwiFarms article, especially as some sources mention KiwiFarms directly. JungleEntity (talk) 01:13, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I said a mention in this article, he is too significant to not mention by name. Mudkipboy7 (talk) 01:49, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your continued misgendering of her is somewhat of a concern. Primefac (talk) 10:57, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, "Wikipedia does not need an article on X notable subject", and "it's easier to avoid it" screams laziness to me. It strikes me as odd that a place for information would basically pick and choose articles based essentially on how comfortable they happen to feel about a specific subject. It's just a bad look to leave gaps in information "just because", despite articles about similar (less notable, even) people existing seemingly without much issue. It's such an arbitrary rule, and it seems likely that most of the people enforcing said rule either know too little, or nothing at all about this subject A Simple Fool (talk) 22:07, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your quotes came out of nowhere. 0xDeadbeef 22:18, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does the My Immortal fanfic really deserve as much attention as the other controversies?

The other controversies relate to provoked suicides and potential connections to / response to a terrorist incident. The authorship of My Immortal (which, as I understand it, is itself of a sort of meme notability and not due to being a serious work) seems to really pale in comparison to the other stuff. So what if something interesting was discovered on the website, that's what it's supposed to do. On the Daily Mail wikipedia page we don't list everything they ever discovered, what is important about the author of this meme fanfic work?! 185.31.98.184 (talk) 04:54, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special%3ADiff%2F1091874844